If It’s Not One Thing, It’s Another: Claiming Alternative Sums Not Fatal Under CDA
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.24.20
In Constellation NewEnergy, Inc., ASBCA No. 62518 (December 8, 2020), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals addressed whether a claim satisfied the Contract Disputes Act’s “sum certain” requirement when it listed two alternative amounts of recovery. The contractor initially submitted a “Change Order Request” in which it sought (1) a certain amount for completed work, and (2) also stated that additional work could be completed for a greater amount. A Navy contract specialist responded, in part, that the Government did not want to pursue or order the proposed additional work. The contractor later converted the submission into a claim for the performed work, without amending the proposed amounts. The contracting officer issued a final decision in which she noted that she was only addressing the amount sought for the performed work. On appeal, the Board requested that the parties address whether the “sum certain” requirement was met. The Navy moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Board ultimately held that the requirement was met because the contracting officer understood what amount had actually been claimed. Specifically, when issuing the decision, the contracting officer recognized that the second, additional amount was not part of the dispute because the Government had declined to order the proposed work. This decision affirms the Board’s precedents maintaining jurisdiction over claims that present an alternative sum certain, where the amount sought is understood and/or can be calculated.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 08.21.26
FTC Proposes Enforcement Policy Statement on Personalized Pricing: What Businesses Need to Know
On August 19, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed Enforcement Policy Statement on personalized pricing — the practice of companies using consumers’ personal data to set individualized prices, discounts, coupons, or other incentives. The proposed statement, which is open for public comment for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register, marks a major step up in the FTC’s focus on data-driven pricing strategies and puts businesses across industries on notice that undisclosed or inadequately disclosed personalized pricing will not be tolerated. Importantly, while the proposed statement is not a binding legal requirement and does not create new legal obligations, it serves as an enforcement warning that the FTC is prepared to use its existing enforcement authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act (Section 5) and is also a potential harbinger of rulemaking. Businesses that engage in — or are considering — personalized pricing should carefully assess their disclosure practices and data collection procedures against the standards articulated in this statement.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.19.26
CMS’s Final Rule Bans Federal Medicaid Funding for Youth Gender-Affirming Care
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.19.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.17.26
Delayed Notification of Cyberattacks May Trigger HIPAA Breach Notification Rule



